From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Atheism is NOT the denial of gods, it is simply the lack of belief in gods. Mksmothers 16:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

This is dealt with in the article and, in comparison with the rest of this article, is handled quite well. There are. at least, three descriptors of an individuals attitide to God: belief that God exists, belief that no God's exist and no belief in either. It is perfectly acceptable to apply a term to one of those three. To insist that one term should cover two statuses is to restrict the propositions that can be expressed about belief: to stack the deck of discourse before the discussion has started. See the appendix to 1984. --Toffeeman 16:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Very long

This article is so very long and hard to read. Is there a better article for atheism that could linked?--Pakhyongshin 13:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT) User:Conservative deleted my question, but I put it up again now. I am seriously. Read it yourself... it is very very long! How about an oversight article about all? When I put this article into Microsoft Word, it is many pages. Better article would be better, please, for serious.--Pakhyongshin 22:16, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

If you just concentrate on the bits that are balanced and fair it's actually quite short. Why don't you try the wikipedia article? --SwissTony 13:44, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Pakyongshin, there are lots of websites on the internet. If you can create an excellent article on atheism then do it. Then ask for the article to be linked to from Conservapedia and for certain portions of it to be incorporated into the conservapedia article. Conservative 18:38, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks but I could not write it. Could you tell me where is a good article on atheism, better than here, to read for me? I mean with good view, not just from web search.--Pakhyongshin 11:28, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

So I don't know where to say this--but it seems to be an oversimplification of Marx' views on religion. In fact, "Religion is the opium of the people" is not even the entire sentence.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

This really, as you can read, has nothing to with the existence of God but rather the use of religion by the state to control the people.

Unable to be edited

This article desperately needs to be edited to eliminate a variety of outright falsehoods (which, as the entrying on lying reminds us, is opposed by the 10 commandments), as well as gross inconsistencies. For example:

Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following concerning the comments of debater Dr. Kai Nielson who advocates atheism:

“ He doesn’t really defend his point there, but he says, "I have a reason why we should be moral." He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." I was really surprised to hear that coming from him. That sort of purely self-interested motivation for morality is, I think, fatal to the atheistic position because for someone who is sufficiently powerful not to be worried about what others do, self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism. It leads to the kind of life of a Marcos, a Papa Doc Duvalier, a Mbbutu, and so forth. Self-interest will never be able to justify an ethic of compassion. And so I think that was a fatal admission on Dr. Nielsen’s part for the atheistic worldview.[48]

Notice that the suggestion that the Bible prohibition of homosexuality is related to the fact that disease results; setting aside for the moment the fact that lesbians are likely to be statistically healthier than child-bearing women, especially before modern medicine, this is a blatant appeal to self-interest. Yet the following quote condemns the basing of morality on self-interest! Hello, are any editors reading this? Or thinking about what is written here? Hello? McFly? <knock knock>--ScottForschler 15:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Scottforschler, are you considering the issue of lesbianism and obesity ? Secondly, I think your likely atheistic worldview (which may be tenuous like Darwin's and Sartre's) is perhaps blinding you to the fact that a person engaging in risky homosexuality related behaviors (and often promiscuity) is often posing a greater health risk to others and to the community at large. Conservative 18:06, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't considering that. It sounds like a dubious claim, I know too many large hetrosexual women and thin lesbians, and also have simply never heard anyone make this claim before; also you haven't tried to suggest that, even if this claim were true, that such obesity would be anywhere near as dangerous as childbirth has historically been prior to modern medicine.
But all of that is actually irrelevant to the main point I was making, which is much more serious (and perhaps that's why you distracted attention from it by focusing on the obesity claim, because you feared you had no response to it and recognized that it was a far more serious point). That is, that even if homosexuality is prudentially bad, the quote which immediately follows that claim and which attempts to use it to suggest that the bible's moral injunction against homosexuality is thereby vindicated comdemns the basing of morality on self-interest. In other worse, the quote condemns the very form of the argument used just above it. The article contradicts itself here. It's not me, Scott Forschler, claiming that it's wrong--the POV of the article itself condemns itself, at least between these two passages.
I'm also baffled as to why you think I have an "atheistic worldview" on the basis of arguments like this. Last I checked, Christians are able to seek the truth, and to at least try to avoid self-contradiction, and other muddles, to the extent that their finite and fallible natures will permit. You should ask yourself, on the other hand, what is it that is blinding you to the second, more serious (and still standing) objection which I made, which again is really just the pointing out of an objection that the article makes to itself, and dodging the issue? What is causing you to avoid the point here, espeically one that could be fixed relatively easily, leaving most of the rest of the article in place? Why are you working so hard to avoid looking at the problem here and recognizing the self-contradiction in the article?--Scottifer 15:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
You know, on second thought, you should just leave the contradictions in. If you want to assert that contradictions are true, and condemn your own views on your own page, that's fine by me. If you want to insist that anyone who is worried about contradictions must be an liberal atheist, that the real Christian and conservative view is to ignore logic, that logical non-contradiction is a petty and malicious concern which you have risen above--then you stand condemned by your own words and nothing that anyone might do or say could possibly make a more damning claim against you than you yourself have. Leave consistency to the wikipedians, and protect your right to make a fool of yourself over here. It's your own petard, hoist away.--Scottifer 16:10, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

do you not trust your users? if you describe yourself as 'The Trustworthy' encyclopedia who are you denying me, an atheist the freedom to modify the page to remove errors or simply add more information? wikipedia allows me, and although that seems to be the work of the devil you are not respecting either your users or your ideas by not allowing them up to debate

--Jdanngeology 17:00, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

i agree what a joke, this page cannot be edited??? it is so biased, and then on top of that editing is prohibited. Freedomfighter13 19:23, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Obviously it needs to be protected if people like you are trying to edit it. The point of this wiki is to be free of liberal bias. Favorite 22:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Not every atheist is a liberal, Favorite. Familiarize yourself with nonbelievers like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand who believed in the free market, but not in God. Is Conservapedia really about conservative values, or fundamentalist Christian values? --Stirlatez 23:15, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Please see this article in relation to "biased" complaints regarding conservapedia's atheism article: Conservative 18:43, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservative brings up an excellent point. From the link, "you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning - never by being rude about your opponent’s psychology." Yet instead of actually addressing any real atheist arguments, the article tries to paint atheism as resulting from psychological conditions such as moral depravity, rebellion, superficiality, error, and poor paternal relationships. Thus, Conservapedia's "atheism" article is bulverism at its worst. We must eliminate the bulverism from this article. --Stirlatez 20:57, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Stirlatez, Conservapedia links to Doug Jesseph's material who was called the most impressive atheist debater to date at It is certainly not Conservapedia's fault that Jesseph and the rest of the atheist horde are so lacking in any real argumentation. Conservative 22:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

So providing links to your opponent's material makes using "bulverism" excusable? Why not actually provide refutations to the various arguments? Wouldn't logical, persuasive and well thought-out responses to popular atheistic arguments be better than the straw men tactics currently on the article? This page is great at demonizing nonbelievers but does nothing to actually refute what they say. --Stirlatez 23:25, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Stirlatez, I did not use bulverism. I provided material which demonstrated the folly of atheism first and then went into the causes of atheism. And of course, as I stated before the causes of atheism will be expanded but not in a way that many atheists will find pleasing. Conservative 18:33, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Statistically, the smarter someone is the more likely they are to be an atheist.


Stirlatez,the issue for me isn't adding counterarguments. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be the location of arguments, criticisms and countercriticisms, but descriptions. This page is thoroughly undescriptive (as is, btw, the Theory of Evolution page, which is about one paragraph describing the theory and then one book criticising it) and should be completely revamped. However, if criticisms and arguments against are insisted upon, then you are right that it is only just that countercriticisms and counterarguments are permitted. I am also completely at loss trying to understand how the fact that Doug Jesseph is linked to somehow makes the page unbiased. I think I have displayed a pretty decent knowledge of philosophy and philosophers yet I have never heard of the man. The fact that he is an impressive debater is also pretty meaningless, as I keep having to point out, winning debates does not make you right. Presenting logically consistent and empirically true arguments in literature makes you right. That insight was Socrate's and Plato's - the rejection of "sophist" rhetoric and the practice of philosophy being about "debating" and "winning" and its substitution for thought out reasoned arguments was pretty much the foundation of western philosophy. Instead of linking to some insignificant "debater", why not present the thoughts and arguments of the great atheist philosophers of the past two hundred years. I repeatedly presented a list of those philosophers and demonstrated some (far from all) of their arguments in archive ten. Seeing as Conservative has not demonstrated knowledge of their arguments, and has not demonstrated understanding of atheist philosophy of the past two hundred years, it would be wise to allow people who do know what they're talking about to edit the page. JohnyGoodman 18:10, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
JohnyGoodman, you have not demonstrated that there have been great atheist philosophers. Secondly, I did indicate that I had planned on having additional material on Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche. I also plan on having some material on Derrida by the way. The article will be expanded in various ways and the homosexuality article does show that I am certainly capable of expanding an article although it might not be in a way that liberals are particularly fond of. Conservative 18:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

You seriously, honestly believe that Bertrand Russell, A.J Ayer, Ludwig Feuerbach, Jean-Paul Sartre, G.E Moore, Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Max Stirner, Ayn Rand, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Daniel Dennett, John Stuart Mill and Martin Heidegger weren't great philosophers? Why is that? They played major roles in all the important philosophies of the past two hundred years. What exactly would you like me to do to prove that they were great? They are accepted by anybody with a not-completely-ideologically-blinded brain as being extremely intelligent, extremely influential persons. You can just google their names to find that out. Would you like me to take you through each and every one of their arguments? Would you like me to suggest a book or two for you to read on them? Pick up say, the History of Western Philosophy by Brian MaGee (it's very basic, but it'll do the job for you). Or Philosophy - The Basics (it's a standard text for 16 year olds).

Btw, on what lines will your analysis of Russell and Nietzsche proceed? I suppose Nietzsche's philosophy will be reduced to a few theological mistakes, and then a full expose of the madness he suffered late in life (which of course invalidates his philosophy doesn't it.) Will you make mention of Russell solely to compare him negatively to the Christian who superseded him, Wittgenstein (not mentioning Wittgenstein's own madness, of course)? On what lines would your description of any of the mentioned philosophers proceed? What are your views on Marx's Introduction to the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the Right? Have you read it? What about Dennett's evolutionary and naturalistic explanations of metaphysical concepts? Ayer's verification principle? All that stuff is pretty well known by the least of "experts". Perhaps you might like one of us to help out.

Johny Goodman, I found your above post rather silly. I suggest reading my comments in the talk page archives again. Secondly, you wrote the following: "You seriously, honestly believe that Bertrand Russell, A.J Ayer, Ludwig Feuerbach, Jean-Paul Sartre, G.E Moore, Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Max Stirner, Ayn Rand, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Daniel Dennett, John Stuart Mill and Martin Heidegger weren't great philosophers? Why is that? They played major roles in all the important philosophies of the past two hundred years." I found your post to be quite amusing. For example, I would love to see your argument that Daniel Dennett played a major role in all the important philosophies in the last 200 years. Given that Mr. Dennett was born in 1942, I am quite skeptical of your above claim to say the least. Conservative 03:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Your misinterpretation of my statement that they played major roles in all the major philosophies of the last two hundred years is depressing where it is nearly hilarious. OBVIOUSLY what was being communicated was that they as a collective contributed to all the major philosophies (i.e, Sartre to existentialism, Marx to Marxism, Foucault to Post-Modernism, etc. If you think of all the major philosophies of the past two hundred years at least one of those played a major part) NOT that as individuals they contributed to every single field (i.e Rand to Objectivism and Marxism and Existentialism and Post-Modernism and etc...) Do you understand now?

So what else did you find "silly"? Have you read any of the suggested texts? Formulated any thoughts on the raised ideas? Come up with that list of great christian philosophers of the past two hundred years to parallel my list yet? The problem expressed here, by many of the people contributing, is that this page has been locked to prevent people who do know they're talking about from making factual changes. If we made any non-factual changes or POV changes then they would be justifiably removed (although given some of the factual edits I have made, it seems that anything justifies removal). So what's the problem? JohnyGoodman 13:55, 22 August 2008 (EDT)


In the section "Claims of the Conditionality and Nonconditionality of Atheism," there is a typo: "On he other hand, the news organization MSNBC featured." The "t" in "the" is missing. Heisoursavior 00:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Fixed the typo. Thanks for your post. --DeanStalk 00:58, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Idea, maybe

Doesn't it make sense that maybe Conservative and the legion of people who disagree with him ought be restricted from being able to further influence this article (considering this is the focal point of the dispute...) until the dispute is resolved? I find it inappropriate, personally, that a Sysop in the middle of a dispute regarding editing rights continues to contribute to the page! I recommend someone such as PJR or Ed be given rights instead (unless their schedules do not allow for it, but still a neutral/fair arbiter can be found) so that this mess may be resolved and the archives can be instead filled with useful discussion. Jirby 17:07, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

The article is written from a conservative Christian perspective. No doubt there are plenty of liberals and atheists who dislike the article, but that is nothing new regarding well trafficked conservapedia articles that contain well supported material which liberals and atheists find inconvenient. Conservative 17:19, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Myspace and Facebook

I like this article. I'm wondering if we might also warn of the very real danger of social sites like Myspace and Facebook. I had the unfortunate experience of stumbling on several blogs by atheist authors trying to promote their books on myspace and turn young people to atheism. As an older Christian woman, I think this is a very real concern for Christians. There are a whole bunch of new books coming out and the authors all have blogs now, like the guy who wrote a book called 50 Reasons Poeple Give for believing in God. (Don't let the title fool you; it's an atheist book.) And there's another one called Christian No More, a title that I find quite scary to say the least. (They're on amazon.) And these people all have myspace pages and facebook pages, trying to push young people into atheism. And to the atheists reading this, you should agree that this is a very real thing, even if you disagree that it's bad. That's why I think we should include this in here. Thank you for your time. MarthaH

MarthaH, I don't believe that MySpace wants atheism to have a high profile. Please see: I don't know much about Facebook and atheism. Conservative 20:45, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
It appears as if MySpace reversed its action that was cited above: conservative 17:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

From Archive 10

“Toffeeman, in your abundance of words you failed to do the one thing you set out to do and that is to show that atheism can be the result of rational inquiry.”

In the post referred to (09:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)) I did not set out to show that atheism can be the result of rational enquiry. I had already done that in my post of 12:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT). My latter post addressed the counter-arguments given in your post of 20:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT). This is pretty standard:

1. I give my argument, 2. You criticise aspects of my argument, 3. I criticise your criticisms.

It really is a bit much to (deliberately?) ignore the existence of “1” simply because I have put forward “3” as well.

“"Proof" by assertion is no substitute for laying out a case using evidence and compelling argumentation.” At no point did I resort to “proof by assertion”. The argument is:

1. If people are widely acclaimed to be great philosophers then they must be, at the least, reasonably rational. (NB They do not have to be "great", what matters is that we establish that they are rational.)

2. If these reasonably rational people are philosophers then they are almost certain to have applied their rational tools to the question of God’s existence.

3. Here is a list of people widely acclaimed to be great philosophers.

4. From 1 and 2 these people rationally enquired into the question of God’s existence

5. These people were atheists

6. From 4 and 5, these people accepted atheism by rational means

7. From 6, there exist people who accepted atheism by rational means

If you like I will write it out in propositional logic. The argument is valid. Whether it is sound is up for debate, but I have yet to see any critique of the logic at all and no objections to the premises that aren’t:

1. Non-sequitors (the Hitler comment is a good example) 2. Mis-representations of evidence (the Stanford article clearly shows that there is no reasonable doubt that Hume was an atheist-as-that-term-is-used-in-the-article) 3. Criticism of irrelevant trifles or Ignoratio elenchi

You would have liked the churches. I went to a very rural part of France that has avoided most of the upheavals of the past and the pollution of the present. The result is that the churches are very well preserved in much the same state as they were when built in the Middle Ages. This includes the artistically primitive (pre-renaissance) frescoes that cover the inside of many of the churches.

--Toffeeman 11:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Toffeeman, you didn't show the atheists in question were widely acclaimed to be great philosophers. Given that atheism is not widely held I don't think you can achieve this objective. Secondly, you didn't show that your voting booth mentality in terms of being acclaimed has any real validity in terms of demonstrating that there material in respect to defending atheism was arrived by rational inquiry. In short, you have utterly failed to demonstrate your main contentions. conservative 19:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Um, they are. Take a philosophy course at any school and these people will be mentioned. If you mean a different kind of great, then provide a definition or don't bother criticizing people for not meeting an arbitrary criteria you haven't even laid out yet. Jirby 19:57, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
Conservative, try as I might, I cannot make sense of either of those points without unfairly constructing straw men.
“(Y)ou didn't show the atheists in question were widely acclaimed to be great philosophers” The argument does not depend on whether I have shown that they are widely held to be great philosophers, rather, it depends of whether they are widely held to be great philosophers. This latter point has not been disputed.
You say that I have “utterly failed to demonstrate your main contentions”, no I haven’t. The contention is my conclusion at “7”. The argument that precedes it demonstrates that: if you accept the premises you are obliged, on pain of contradiction, to accept that conclusion. There you have it. Why I do put forward “7”? I do so because of “1” to “6” and here is how they support “7”. That is a demonstration, “showing”, an argument, “giving reasons” or whatever you like to call it. You confuse a contention with a reason for that contention, evidence with the conclusion based on that evidence and premises with conclusions. My premises are not in doubt. At least, I have not been informed of any doubt. If they are undoubted then the conclusion, under pain of contradiction, cannot be in doubt.
The nearest you appear to have come in disputing one of my premises is the first: that if people are widely acclaimed to be great philosophers then they must be, at the least, reasonably rational. Your, frankly rude, comment about “a voting booth mentality” (it is the use of the term “mentality” to which I object) appears to be targeted at that premise. A “voting booth” methodology is no way of establishing that these people were great philosophers, yet it is an excellent way of figuring out if they are widely held to be great philosophers. And from this we can reasonably conclude that they were rational people. Put it this way: soon a President of the United States will be elected, by a voting booth methodology. It would be wrong to reason from this to the conclusion that the new President was the best orator of all the candidates in the primaries. It would, however, be reasonable to conclude that whoever wins is not woefully inarticulate. Now Hume, for example, is on the curriculum of just about every philosophy department. It would be wrong to conclude, from this alone, that he was a great philosopher. It is perfectly reasonable, however, to conclude from this that his “thought is going to be of an, at least, fair quality”. I take premise “1”, the one you have come nearest to actually objecting to, to be established. Accordingly I see absolutely no reason (other than the “voting booth mentality” crack I haven’t been given one) to revise my conclusion. In fact I will go further: it is not only the case that many have become atheist through rational enquiry but also the case that you know it.--Toffeeman 08:38, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
Toffeeman, you seem to have an inordinate respect for the intellectual backwaters in liberal academia commonly called philosophy departments. I don't see why you insist that these purveyors of useless liberal gibberish necessarily need to be considered rational or important. You certainly have not demonstrated that their works have often resulted in any profound insights that have demonstrably benefited humanity. In addition, you certainly have not demonstrated that atheistic philosophers are widely regarded to engage in rational inquiry and given that atheism is not widely widely held I do not believe you can do so. conservative 14:07, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
So in other words, it's your article, so you'll say what you want. Got it. --IanG 14:30, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Conservative, you have been given an argument (above) with the reasoning clearly laid out; even to the extent of numbering the steps in that argument. Do you deny a premise? Do you critique the logic? No, you bring in irrelevant stuff-Harry-G-Frankfurt-wrote-about. It matters not that they are “intellectual backwaters”, it matters not that you think them “liberal”. It matters not whether they are rational and still less that they be important. Any profound insights, demonstrable or otherwise, would be welcome. Welcome but, again, irrelevant. Do they benefit humanity or are do they merely play silly intellectual games? Do they hinder and bedevil mankind? It doesn’t matter: none of these form part of the reasons given for accepting that atheism has been reached by rational enquiry. “(A)theistic philosophers” in general are not the example given: whether or not they are “widely regarded to engage in rational inquiry” is both irrelevant and confused attempt at refutation by denying the possibility of an argumentum ad populum. I would advise reading some of the output of these philosophy departments: you may see that there is a better target for the term “gibberish”.
IanG, I think you are entirely correct. I think however that it would be vain to hope that Conservative would be open enough to confirm that.--Toffeeman 15:47, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Toffeeman, I am surprised you are pointing the ad populum finger given that you are the one who advanced the "common held" defense. I merely pointed out that your claim of "commonly held" is false. conservative 17:30, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Read it. The ad populum argues from the popularity of X to the truth of X. I did not argue from the popularity of X to the truth of X. Neither did you argue ad populum, nor did I say that you had. You argued from the (alleged) impossibility of an ad populum argument for X to the falsity of X. --Toffeeman 17:44, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Toffeeman, there are certainly members of academia who are in philosophy departments who are reasonable (there are certainly conservative colleges and universities) - for example, Alvin Plantinga. However, liberal academia is infested with fools like Jacques Derrida who could supposedly merely say I rightly pass for an atheist but supposedly could not decide if he was an atheist or not (see: ). The fact that a fool like Derrida could easily be employed in the philosophy departments of liberal academic institutions does not bode well for your contentions. conservative 22:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
We agree on something! Plantinga is reasonable, whereas Derrida is a bit of a pratt. Totally irrelevant, of course. Which premise does it call into question? None. What is the point of it? None. Oh, well. Unfortunately I am pretty confident that our little chats must come to an end soon. Goodbye.--Toffeeman 09:40, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

So philosophy departments are liberal backwaters that have made no contributions to humanity? "Liberal" philosophy is no less contributive than conservative philosophy. If one were to take the approach that science is the contributive factor and that philosophy is often just a case of pointless unscientific conjecturing, then that criticism applies equally to Aquinas as it does to Feuerbach. If one takes the position that philosophy raises the questions for science to answer, then it is clear that in 200 years of liberal philosophy many questions have been raised as well as old questions greatly elaborated upon and that many of both have been answered by science - and have thus benefited humanity. Besides, it is irrelevant whether or not a philosophers insight has had a beneficial impact on humanity, the fact that they have had an important insight is quite clear evidence that they are rational thinkers. As for whether atheists have ever had important insights, I have repeatedly presented a list of the greatest atheist philosophers of the past two hundred years, noting that they were leaders of the most important and insightful fields in philosophy of the past two hundred years. You made some ridiculous comment when presented with that list that "there's no way Daniel Dennett founded Marxism", and when I showed that comment up for how poorly thought out it was, you failed to respond, presumably because you recognise the limits of how far your rhetoric and wordplay can salvage the worst of your arguments and weakest of your positions.

But to be honest, at this point it is past time for the end of this "discussion". Toffeeman and myself have repeatedly explained the basics of our argument, and you have been completely unable to offer relevant criticisms. I have presented on several occasions opportunities for you to dispute our claims, yet you have declined to do so. You quote from such sources as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and yet steadfastly insist that atheist philosophers are not accepted as rational thinkers even though that site claims otherwise. You have drawn out an entirely arbitrary line between what constitutes "liberal insanity" and "christian infallibility" across which such claims as "some atheists could think coherently" cannot cross because, well, you say so. You have received sustained criticism from numerous editors, yet have only been able to respond with ad hominems and even worse logical fallacies, and while you accuse those critics of making unsourced assertions you assert that your own material is well supported and correct, even though you have been unable to defend your assumption of the superiority of christian thought (particularly over the past two hundred years) over the insanity of liberal thought.

Often, Popper argued, a statement presented as scientific is immunized as quickly as it is rendered obsolete by evidence. Its opponents are made the target of ad hominems, transformed into ideologically possessed, morally corrupt demons. Their arguments are rejected for not meeting an unattainable standard of evidence. Suppressive measures are introduced, where those who dare question the now unquestionable authority are silenced, mocked, cast out. Now I ask you to consider this argument once more, as undoubtedly you had no problem considering it when it came to "Darwinism", because it is clear to any observer that it applies to your strict enforcement of unsubstantiated claims and rejection of criticisms based on the flimsiest of counterarguments.JohnyGoodman 12:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Excelent article?

As I scroll down the index menu all I can see is critic of atheism, critics about atheism, dangers of atheism and so on. Don't you think its worth trying make this article a little more neutral than this? I mean, this so purly an oppinion of the conservapedia crew, and not a reflection of what is commonly thought. --Nabroon 15:56, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

You misspelled excellent. Secondly, if you could provide factual data regarding what is commonly thought it would be more useful than a mere assertion. Third, I am sorry to see you prefer supposed neutrality over reality. Conservative 23:16, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
You think that since your article has only bad things to say about atheism, the majority of the people on earth also therfore must share your view? Isn't that a little bit naive to assume?
Most people who view this site know that your version of the "truth" is highly distorted and changed to suit your ideas of good and bad. Not everybody in the world is neoconservatives with a strong faith in young earth creation science. --Nabroon 17:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Look, Nabroon, let's break this down.
Mr. Schlafly selected this article as Article of the Year. He obviously thinks it's okay
Conservapedia caters to a right-wing, Christian sort of view. Therefore, you will find a right-wing, Christian tone on this article. We're not going to advocate Atheism. I don't want to debate this but these are my two cents. Heisoursavior 19:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually, Conservative declared this to be Article of the Year. Andy didn't revert that edit, so I assume he approves, but that's not the point. (I agree with Nabroon, by the way. Also not my point.) Usual disclaimers apply. -CSGuy 19:57, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I see. I assumed Mr. Schlafly chose the article as he is the founder of Conservapedia. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Heisoursavior 20:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Nabroon, once again, if you could provide factual data regarding what is commonly thought it would be more useful than a mere assertion. conservative 20:55, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Anselm isn't the originator of the Ontological Argument

The article is protected, so I cannot edit it, but it has false info. The Persian Avicenna, who lived about a century before Anselm, was the first to propose ontological arguments in order to prove the existence of God. Please correct this. Ottotanaka 20:43, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

but he wasn't a christian

Ottotanaka, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you are incorrect. There does seem to be some controversy on the internet regarding Avicenna and whether he had a true ontological argument:,&source=web&ots=gcvuXdQzSX&sig=rUoCJ7lK-vEWkOYOPw3R5n52Usc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result Here is what Stanford states about this matter: To be on the cautious side, however, I did change the atheism article regarding Anselm and the ontological argument as your point may have some merit but unfortunately I do not currently have the time to research the matter. conservative 22:26, 10 September 2008 (EDT)